OBJECTIVE: To develop a scoring system to measure physical morbidity in critical care - the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool (CPAx). METHOD: The development process was iterative involving content validity indices (CVI), a focus group and an observational study of 33 patients to test construct validity against the Medical Research Council score for muscle strength, peak cough flow, Australian Therapy Outcome Measures score, Glasgow Coma Scale score, Bloomsbury sedation score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, Short Form 36 (SF-36) score, days of mechanical ventilation and inter-rater reliability. PARTICIPANTS: Trauma and general critical care patients from two London teaching hospitals. RESULTS: Users of the CPAx felt that it possessed content validity, giving a final CVI of 1.00 (P<0.05). Construct validation data showed moderate to strong significant correlations between the CPAx score and all secondary measures, apart from the mental component of the SF-36 which demonstrated weak correlation with the CPAx score (r=0.024, P=0.720). Reliability testing showed internal consistency of α=0.798 and inter-rater reliability of κ=0.988 (95% confidence interval 0.791 to 1.000) between five raters. CONCLUSION: This pilot work supports proof of concept of the CPAx as a measure of physical morbidity in the critical care population, and is a cogent argument for further investigation of the scoring system.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a scoring system to measure physical morbidity in critical care - the Chelsea Critical Care Physical Assessment Tool (CPAx). METHOD: The development process was iterative involving content validity indices (CVI), a focus group and an observational study of 33 patients to test construct validity against the Medical Research Council score for muscle strength, peak cough flow, Australian Therapy Outcome Measures score, Glasgow Coma Scale score, Bloomsbury sedation score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, Short Form 36 (SF-36) score, days of mechanical ventilation and inter-rater reliability. PARTICIPANTS: Trauma and general critical care patients from two London teaching hospitals. RESULTS: Users of the CPAx felt that it possessed content validity, giving a final CVI of 1.00 (P<0.05). Construct validation data showed moderate to strong significant correlations between the CPAx score and all secondary measures, apart from the mental component of the SF-36 which demonstrated weak correlation with the CPAx score (r=0.024, P=0.720). Reliability testing showed internal consistency of α=0.798 and inter-rater reliability of κ=0.988 (95% confidence interval 0.791 to 1.000) between five raters. CONCLUSION: This pilot work supports proof of concept of the CPAx as a measure of physical morbidity in the critical care population, and is a cogent argument for further investigation of the scoring system.
Authors: Selina M Parry; Catherine L Granger; Sue Berney; Jennifer Jones; Lisa Beach; Doa El-Ansary; René Koopman; Linda Denehy Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-02-05 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Minxuan Huang; Kitty S Chan; Jennifer M Zanni; Selina M Parry; Saint-Clair G B Neto; Jose A A Neto; Vinicius Z M da Silva; Michelle E Kho; Dale M Needham Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Avelino C Verceles; Chris L Wells; John D Sorkin; Michael L Terrin; Jeffrey Beans; Toye Jenkins; Andrew P Goldberg Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2018-07-11 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Rebecca Cusack; Andrew Bates; Kay Mitchell; Zoe van Willigen; Linda Denehy; Nicholas Hart; Ahilanandan Dushianthan; Isabel Reading; Maria Chorozoglou; Gordon Sturmey; Iain Davey; Michael Grocott Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-04-15 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Selina M Parry; Linda Denehy; Lisa J Beach; Sue Berney; Hannah C Williamson; Catherine L Granger Journal: Crit Care Date: 2015-03-29 Impact factor: 9.097